User talk:Windowsforgood

March 2009[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Wittenberg University. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Apparition¹¹ ^Complaints/Mistakes 05:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ANI[edit]

Hello, Windowsforgood. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Apparition¹¹ ^Complaints/Mistakes 05:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. NeutralHomer • Talk • March 17, 2009 @ 05:51 05:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

For disruptive tendentious editing and apparent abuse of multiple accounts at Wittenberg University, I have blocked you for 48 hours.

Do not try to evade this block by creating yet new accounts, or by soliciting more friends to edit on your behalf. If any new advocacy accounts should appear during the time of your block continuing your editing pattern, both you and all other accounts involved will be indefinitely blocked with no further warning.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry[edit]

You have been accused of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Johnathan87. Thank you. I now see that you were already blocked for it, but I should probably still notify you. Apparition¹¹ ^Complaints/Mistakes 07:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder, as you did to Wittenberg University. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Apparition¹¹ ^Complaints/Mistakes 07:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to Wittenberg University, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Apparition¹¹ ^Complaints/Mistakes 07:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked again[edit]

You have returned to your disruptive editing agenda right after the last block. You were repeatedly warned not to insert promotional copyrighted text into this article. This time you are blocked for a week. If you return with more of the same, the next block will be indefinite. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Windowsforgood (talk) 07:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I don't find that fair at all, Apparation11 and Future Perfect at Sunrise. I didn't even add anything about the coffee shop. I was adding some additional information. Listen, I am not a sockpuppet. You have no proof. I have just agreed with everything those other people have said. And I'm helping them. They are currently not able to edit. Regarding trying to advertise, I am not advertising. Wittenberg deserves to tell what they are known for and what they are unique for. Adding about their coffee shop or about their entertainment is not advertising. I also request you to look at other universities and colleges. They all have the same information.

However, you are still violating our copyright rules.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 07:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(I'm slow replying) What you inserted was heavily copied straight from here. During my first Google search, I came up with another hit, but I couldn't find that in the few seconds that it took me to find that. If you read your edit, it is obvious that it is promotional. Apparition¹¹ ^Complaints/Mistakes 07:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Update) Here is the first hit I got. Apparition¹¹ ^Complaints/Mistakes 08:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Windowsforgood (talk) 08:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Yeah, I guess you are right... can you maybe help re-write it for me? I'm sorry for doing that. But I just don't want to be blocked. I don't know how to edit well on wikipedia.

(Windowsforgood (talk) 08:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I looked at the website. I didn't see the exact words taken from the website and copied to wikipedia. They are different words. And I'm not writing to promote the university. I have other things to do than that. I am writing this information for people to write a scholar journal about Wittenberg. I have noticed that a lot of things about Wittenberg are not on there. If you look at the top universities they all have a lot of information that may seem promoting but is there to give the reader background information about the school and that is what we are doing for this university. If you find it promoting- you can re-edit it to make it not so promoting. But I believe the information should be posted.

(Windowsforgood (talk) 07:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I didn't mean to do that. I will refrain from doing that again. All I ask for is to please be unblocked and given a chance. We can talk about this in a civil matter. It's not fair to just block me because you disagree on what is advertising and what isn't. It's not fair to also accuse me of being a sockpuppet when you have very little proof to provide yourself with, and you are just assuming so.

Well most of the evidence of sockpuppetry can be seen here. Coupled with the fact that you are doing the same thing as many other SPAs, with what I said here about the coincidence of your reply, and also how you do your signature the exact same way as the SPA who I asked to reply [1], I think that's a pretty good case. Apparition¹¹ ^Complaints/Mistakes 08:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, I don't believe just because my signature is the same and just because your other friend who was suppose to leave information on your talk page didn't makes it a good case. That seems really babyish if you ask me.

I don't know any of those other user names. And if you disagree about the content you are more than welcome to re-write it to make it seem better. Or find more information on the subject matter. But I don't think it's a good idea to block someone on here because you disagree with them.

I see, you have the same tendencies, you make the same edits, and you created an account just to reply to a post in which I requested another SPA to reply to (3 min after I requested), but we have no proof that you're a sock... Also, when I do try to rewrite anything, it is generally reverted by you or the other socks. Apparition¹¹ ^Complaints/Mistakes 08:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Windowsforgood (talk) 08:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Not sure what the same tendencies are. And you are more than welcome to re-edit information. But what you do is you delete everything that I wrote or one of the other editors on here. And I agree with the other editors. Listen I have no affiliation with the other user names. I'd like to be removed from that case. And please remove me from being blocked. I think we only disagree on information that can be posted and how to re-write the information. I do agree that copyright was not right, and I will not do that again.

Like I said earlier, I don't think it's fair to call me a stock because you assume that I have the same tendencies. Please be more realistic about that. This entire word of a "stock" is just unbelievable to me. Because you simply have no proof and it's only assuming. And I don't think that is fair and I am not happy that I am being considered one. I happen to agree with the other editors and that's the only thing I can say.

WP:DUCK. Also, WP:COPYVIOs are removed, period. Apparition¹¹ ^Complaints/Mistakes 08:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Sorry, but when the shoe fits, it fits. If you're as innocent as you say you are, you shouldn't be all that worried about the SPI case, as, one of the things requested for that case is a checkuser request. Checkusers are users on wikipedia who have a special right that allows them to see the IP address behind the edits, and because of this, accounts are easily linked together.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 08:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Windowsforgood (talk) 08:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Saying to me, "when the shoe fits it fits... makes no sense.

I'm worried because I cannot edit information on the site because I'm being considered a "stockpuppet." And that is just unacceptable to me.

Now let me say this what if someone whom I don't know was using the exact same IP service in the same area. Some computers are connected to the same IP address in an area.. now all of a sudden because I use the same thing and I'm not affiliated to him/she, you are saying, "You are a stockpuppet." I mean it makes no sense. I am not saying that is case, but what I am saying is linking IP addresses doesn't mean much evidence.

If you had PROOF. Like PROOF not assumptions, I would understand. Don't you think it's interesting how I'm the one coming out and saying I am not part of this stockpuppet group. Seems like the other users were one identity. If they weren't they would be coming out.

So, if you shared the same IP, made the same edits, etc., that still wouldn't be enough PROOF? Do you think that we should have to have video footage of you using more than one account? Apparition¹¹ ^Complaints/Mistakes 08:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No because some computers are linked to many IP addresses. But that's not the case, so you don't need to worry about me on that. My point is, it's hard to pin point who is a sock puppet and who isn't. And that is my point. You are accusing me of being one and have all of these assumptions but really there is no hard evidence.

Meatpuppets and sockpuppets are treated the same per this. Apparition¹¹ ^Complaints/Mistakes 08:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, "your now a sockpuppet." Done! So rude! Do you understand how upset I am?????

I didn't say that I am using the same proxy or IP address in the area. Are you not understanding what I'm saying. I pretty sure I made that clear.

Please re-read what I wrote:

"No because some computers are linked to many IP addresses. But that's not the case, so you don't need to worry about me on that. My point is, it's hard to pin point who is a sock puppet and who isn't. And that is my point. You are accusing me of being one and have all of these assumptions but really there is no hard evidence."

Are you saying you're on a LAN? Secondly, the fact that you're saying you're not a sockpuppet, when you've been accused of being such, is not uncommon amongst accused sockpuppets.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 08:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm trying to make the point I'm not a sockpuppet. Did you ever think of that??

I think its quite unfortunate that you consider people sockpuppets when they aren't. I've tried to tell you- and I will have to file an investigation myself into this. I believe most of you that monitor this don't really get the point of wikipedia. We need someone at a CEO level to begin to monitor copyright information, what is allowed on wikipedia, not just saying, "oh this not notable or this is not for publicity or other bull.

Maybe you're not hearing us correctly. Your word is not good enough to give you a free pass out of a sockpuppet investigation. Currently, all evidence points to you. If you really are as innocent as you say you are, you have nothing to worry about. Also, unless it is under a LAN, it is technically impossible for more than one computer to use the same IP address.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 09:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]